Commonwealth v. Starr

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that Little established “a rebuttal presumption that placing the solution or ampoules on the market, after independent testing, constitutes certification that the products will operate as intended.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Baumgardner
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-01-23· cited 6×
• United States v. Griggs
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2000-09-15· cited 4×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hughes
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-03-13· cited 237×
• Commonwealth v. Levesque
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-10-08· cited 37×
• Commonwealth v. Verticelli
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-01-29· cited 30×
• Commonwealth v. Hoopes
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-12-01· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. Hamme
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-12-13· cited 21×
• Commonwealth v. Brosnick
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-05-18· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. Guerry
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-10-08· cited 13×
• Commonwealth v. Little
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-07-09· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Thill
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-08-06· cited 8×
• Commonwealth v. Lymph
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-03-17· cited 7×
• Commonwealth v. Townsend
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-08-06· cited 5×